Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

You seem to be under the impression, like Emily's Cat, that the goal is to make the Confederacy out to look as bad as possible. That's "us versus them" thinking. The goal, at least in this line of the discussion, is historical accuracy.

To accomplish that, you have to defend them from my salacious attack. You don't have to do that.

You seem to be under the impression, like Emily's Cat, that the goal is to make the Confederacy out to look as bad as possible. That's "us versus them" thinking. The goal, at least in this line of the discussion, is historical accuracy.

But their goal is to make the confederacy look as good as possible and so being opposed to that must mean we are slandering it.

I said they did heinous thing X. You said they didn't. You are defending them.

If you said the Confederacy was responsible for the Rape of Nanking I'd defend them from that too.

The issue is not one of ideology but of truth. It's pretty simple: when you are wrong, you're wrong.

__________________"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov

And you would be defending slavers. There are definitely people who would be offended by that (I am not).

Um, okay. So what? I'm not worried about offending people by telling the truth.

If I failed to point out that the Confederacy wasn't to blame for The Rape of Nanking, I'd also be complacent in allowing its actual perpetrators to avoid blame.

__________________"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov

__________________Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.
Everything is possible, but not everything is probable.
For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes

I have increasingly had the same problem with BTC's arguments in this thread.

In this case I guess that BTC is trying to illustrate (by example) that it is wrong to blame evil people for things that they have not done, and since BTC has maintained that the Confederacy was not fighting for slavery per se, but for the economic benefits of slavery (and this point appears to me to be incorrect and the distinction moot and absurd), it is therefore wrong to blame the Confederacy for defending slavery. Just a guess. But whether I am right or wrong in my interpretation of BTC's argument, I have no desire in pursuing it further.

I have increasingly had the same problem with BTC's arguments in this thread.

In this case I guess that BTC is trying to illustrate (by example) that it is wrong to blame evil people for things that they have not done, and since BTC has maintained that the Confederacy was not fighting for slavery per se, but for the economic benefits of slavery (and this point appears to me to be incorrect and the distinction moot and absurd), it is therefore wrong to blame the Confederacy for defending slavery. Just a guess. But whether I am right or wrong in my interpretation of BTC's argument, I have no desire in pursuing it further.

It's semantic gameplaying, and reinforces a lesson that members probably should have learned by now...

__________________Never let anyone forget that the American people elected a rapist to be their president. President Rapist is the only name that should be used when referring to this evil narcissist.

I agree that semantics can be important, but so, and more so, the actual meaning of what we say.

In the case of the Confederacy, I truly believe that though there's a theoretical semantic difference between the concept of slavery and its practice, the two are indelibly wedded in the practical world where slavery actually is practiced. I sort of get BTC's point (or at least I think it's the point) that, because the promotion of slavery in the Confederacy was more than just a philosophical abstraction, it was tainted with practical greed and cruelty and whatnot, but insofar as there's a difference, I think that once an abstraction like "slavery" is actually practiced, the name of the abstraction includes all the odium of its peripheral implications, its corruption of thought, and its just plain evil practice. One can, in other words, say with reasonable assurance, that the Confederacy was about slavery, and not mince about with what part of its philosophical content was thought about by whom. If there is a difference between the abstraction and its consequences, the fault is as much to those who tout abstractions without understanding what they actually mean.

I think one problem in this whole argument, and one which perhaps BTC does not understand but which I suspect others do, is that by separating the concept from the practice one is suggesting that an abstraction is cleaner or less odious than its embodiment, and that the sin of the Confederacy would have been less if it had practiced some hypothetical other sort of slavery...e.t.a. or had agitated for its establishment because they were too stupid to understand the reaity.

__________________Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding. (Samuel Johnson)

There is already a difference between the two. Conflating them is dishonest.

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

The solution is to simply accept the connotation around defend is misguided.

I have no idea what you are trying to say.

Originally Posted by bruto

I sort of get BTC's point (or at least I think it's the point) that, [snip]

I think one problem in this whole argument, and one which perhaps BTC does not understand but which I suspect others do, is that by separating the concept from the practice one is suggesting that an abstraction is cleaner or less odious than its embodiment, and that the sin of the Confederacy would have been less if it had practiced some hypothetical other sort of slavery

Maybe? I honestly have no idea what point BTC is trying to make. It seems much more stream-of-consciousness to me.

__________________"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"You are the herp to my derp" -- bit_pattern

There is already a difference between the two. Conflating them is dishonest.

I have no idea what you are trying to say.

Maybe? I honestly have no idea what point BTC is trying to make. It seems much more stream-of-consciousness to me.

That could be, of course, but I rather think he is engaged in philosophical niggling about the difference between an abstract concept and its implementation, because the sins that the abstract concept permits are not explicitly defined by it. Saying that the Confederate advocacy of the existing slave practices and economy was worse than simply advocating slavery in the abstract may be true but it's backwards to say that the abstract concept was not part of the bundle the Confederates fought for.

And since slavery existed in reality, and the sins that it engendered and enabled beyond those that might be contained in its definition were tangible and widespread, I would contend that any ability to advocate slavery as a purely abstract concept was lost forever, just as, if the high-minded and quixotic anarchists of old had succeeded in their establishment of anarchy, all who advocated it after would be answerable for its consequences.

If you want to say that the Confederates fought not just for slavery itself but for the peculiar and pernicious way it was implemented, fine, but that does not mean they did not fight for slavery itself in the abstract. It's included by necessity.

__________________Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding. (Samuel Johnson)

The first chant was a reference to efforts to remove a statue of Confederate general Robert E. Lee from Charlottesville’s main square — a fight that’s made this Southern college town an epicenter for white nationalists seeking to stem what they see as a tide of political correctness.

I think I'm seeing clear evidence of a link between the Confederate legacy and fascism here.

__________________Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.
Everything is possible, but not everything is probable.
For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes

These folks seem so proud of backing the losers of history... Confederate and Nazi flags fly in equal measure at these events... are they hoping that 'third times the charm' since they have a PotUS who won't confront them for what they are?

These folks seem so proud of backing the losers of history... Confederate and Nazi flags fly in equal measure at these events... are they hoping that 'third times the charm' since they have a PotUS who won't confront them for what they are?

The fact followers of an ideology lost an armed conflict is not evidence the ideology is wrong.

Who said they were losers merely because they lost armed conflicts? You are injecting srawmen.

Arisia in post 954

Quote:

These folks seem so proud of backing the losers of history... Confederate and Nazi flags fly in equal measure at these events... are they hoping that 'third times the charm' since they have a PotUS who won't confront them for what they are?

Also, simply you thinking my interpretation is wrong is not a strawman.